bertolacci, ammonius and al-farabi, the sources of av's concept of met.pdf

Amos Bertolacci

Ammonius and al-Farab : The Sources of Avicennas Concept of Metaphysics*

The doctrinal influence of Ammonius Son of Hermeias, active in Alexandria be-tween the V and the VI c. AD, on the metaphysical system of Avicenna is one ofthe main tenets of R. Wisnovskys recent monograph on Avicennas meta-physics1. As portrayed by Wisnowsky, though, the influence of Ammonius meta-physics on Avicennas thought in particular, and on Arabic philosophy in gene-ral, is indirect in a double respect. First, it is not exerted by Ammonius himself,but rather by Aristotelian commentators that were his disciples, like Philoponus.Second, it does not stem from works on metaphysics by these commentators, butrather from works on natural philosophy and psychology (i.e. their commentarieson Aristotles Physics and De Anima).

In the present article, I wish to provide evidence for a direct influence of Am-monius metaphysics in Arabic philosophy. As I am going to argue, this influ-ence is direct in both the aforementioned respects: it comes directly from Am-monius and originates from some works of his on metaphysics. The first recipi-ent and witness of this influence is al-Frb in his treatise On the Goals of Aris-totles Metaphysics, whose impact on Avicennas understanding of the Meta-physics is well-known. Thus, the relationship of Avicennas metaphysics withAmmonius metaphysical thought is broader than the one envisaged before: Avi-cenna is connected with Ammonius metaphysics not only through commentaries

* I wish to thank Dr. Concetta Luna, Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa, and Dr. Cristina DAnconaCosta, University of Pisa, for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

1 R. WISNOVSKY, Avicennas Metaphysics in Context, Cornell University Press, Ithaca (New York) 2003(see my review of this book in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, forthcoming). On Ammonius Son of Her-meias and the Arabic tradition related to him, see C. HEIN, Definition und Enteilung der Philosophie. Vonder sptantiken Einleitungsliterature zur arabischen Enzyklopdie, Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M.-Bern-NewYork 1985, 13-14; H.D. SAFFREY / J.-P. MAH, Ammonios dAlexandrie, in R. GOULET (d.), Dictionnairedes Philosophes antiques, vol. I, CNRS Editions, Paris 1989, 168-170; U. RUDOLPH, Die Doxographie desPseudo-Ammonios. Ein Beitrag zur neuplatonischen berlieferung im Islam, Deutsche MorgenlndischeGesellschaft, Stuttgart / Kommissionsverlag F. Steiner, Wiesbaden 1989, 210-211.

Quaestio, 5 (2005), 287-305

15_Bertolacci_5.QXD 21-04-2006 15:08 Pagina 287

288 Amos Bertolacci

on natural philosophy and psychology by later Greek commentators, but also bymeans of a treatise on metaphysics by his closest predecessor in Arabic philo-sophy, al-Frb. If my analysis is correct, a fundamental joint connecting theGreek metaphysics of Late Antiquity with the early phase of Arabic metaphysicsis now available for further investigation.

Al-Frbs work Maqla ... f Ar al-akm f kull maqla min al-kitb al-mawsm bi-l-urf (Treatise ... on the Goals of the Sage [= Aristotle] in Each Trea-tise of the Book named by means of Letters [= Metaphysics]) has already attrac-ted the attention of scholars2. Previous studies have remarked the importance ofthis treatise both in itself and in its subsequent reception. The treatise is im-portant in itself, in so far as it shows that in Aristotles Metaphysics philosophi-cal theology is part of a broader doctrine of being, or ontology, and keeps Aris-totelian philosophical theology distinct from Islamic revealed theology. The im-portance of the treatise in its subsequent reception is mainly due to the deep in-fluence it exerted, above all, on Avicenna. In the present article I am going toarticulate more in detail these two points and to show the importance of this trea-tise also with regard to its sources.

I divide the exposition into three sections. In the first (1), I analyze the con-tent of the F Ar. In the second section (2), I point at Ammonius as the mainsource of the F Ar and tentatively identify the work of Ammonius which al-Frb might have taken as model. In the third section (3), I document Avicen-nas reception of al-Frbs treatise.

1. Analysis of the F Ar

The F Ar consists of three main parts (see the outline of contents below). Thefirst ([1]) is an Introduction: it indicates the themes of the following two parts andexplains their importance. The second part ([2]) takes into account the goal ofthe Metaphysics. The third part ([3]) deals with the single treatises of this workand their specific goals.

2 Edition: Alfrbs Philosophische Abhandlungen, ed. F. Dieterici, Brill, Leiden 1890, 34-38. Trans-lations: Die Abhandlung ven den Tendenzen der aristotelischen Metaphysik von dem Zweiten Meister, inAlfrbs Philosophische Abhandlungen, aus den Arabischen bersetzt von F. Dieterici, Brill, Leiden1892, 54-60; TH.-A. DRUART, Le trait dal-Frb sur les buts de la Mtaphysique dAristote, Bulletin dePhilosophie Mdivale, 24 (1982), 38-43; R. RAMN GUERRERO, Al-Frb y la Metafsica de Aristte-les, La Ciudad de Dios, 196 (1983), 211-240; D. GUTAS, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition. Intro-duction to Reading Avicennas Philosophical Works, Brill, Leiden-New York-Kbenhavn-Kln 1988, 240-242.


Ammonius and al Frb: The Sources of Avicennas Concept of Metaphysics 289

Outline of the contents of the F Ar:

[Title (34,1-5)]

[1. Introduction (34,6-20)][1.1 Presentation of parts 2 and 3 (34,6-8)][1.2 Importance of part 2 (34,8-13)][1.3 Importance of part 3 (34,14-18)][1.4 Topics dealt with in parts 2 and 3 (34,19-20)]

[2 Goal of the Metaphysics (34,21-36,20)][2.1 The particular sciences (34,21-35,7)][2.2 The universal science (35,8-12)][2.3 There is only one universal science (35,13-16)][2.4 The divine science is part of the universal science (35,16-19)][2.5 The universal sciences name is metaphysics (35,19-36,9)][2.6. Contents of universal science/metaphysics (36,9-20)]

[3. Goals of the single treatises of the Metaphysics (36,21-38,5)][3.1 Alpha Elatton (36,21-22)][3.2 Beta (37,1-3)][3.3 Gamma (37,4-5)][3.4 Delta (37,6-8)][3.5 Epsilon (37,9-13)][3.6 Zeta (37,14-18)][3.7 Eta (37,19-21)][3.8 Theta (37,22)][3.9 Iota (37,23)][3.10 Kappa [?] (38,1)][3.11 Lambda (38,2-4)][3.12 Mi [?] (38,5)][Conclusion (38,6)]

Part [1] presents briefly the content of the following two parts in [1.1] and[1.4], and shows their importance in [1.2] and [1.3] respectively. Section [1.2]shows the necessity of discussing the goal of the Metaphysics in part [2]. Thisnecessity arises from the conflict between the common expectations about theMetaphysics and its actual content: whereas people expect the Metaphysics tobe fully devoted to the investigation of theological matters, and metaphysics asa discipline to coincide with Islamic theology, such an investigation is in factavailable only in one of its treatises (L). Al-Frbs way of describing the mis-conception regarding the Metaphysics in [1.2] is revealing. On the one hand,the content of the Metaphysics is misconceived as amounting to the study ofthe Creator, the Intellect, the Soul (al-br ... wa-l-aql wa-l-nafs) and other


290 Amos Bertolacci

related topics. On the other hand, the science of metaphysics is misconceivedas identical with the science of the profession of Gods oneness (ilm al-tawd). The former misconception makes possible the latter, and in fact is theonly one that will be taken into account and refuted in part [2]. The Neopla-tonic background of the triad Creator-Intellect-Soul is evident, whereas ilm al-tawd is an expression designating Islamic theology3. Thus, al-Frb is deal-ing with an attempt at isolating the theological content of the Metaphysics fromthe rest of the work, at interpreting it in a Neoplatonic perspective, and at stress-ing its congruence with Islamic theology. This way of reading the Metaphysicsis the one proper to al-Kind. For al-Kind gives special importance to books aand L of the Metaphysics, inserts the Metaphysics in a canon of metaphysicalworks to which also the Theologia Aristotelis, the Liber de Causis and other Neo-platonic writings belong, and emphasizes the affinity between Greek meta-physics and Islamic theology in order to legitimize the former (and philoso-phy in general) in the Muslim cultural environment. As an answer to the Kin-dian way of reading the Metaphysics, in part [2] al-Frb will show that the in-vestigation of theological matters is one of the main topics of the Metaphyiscs,but not the only one.

Section [1.3] (see Text 4 below) shows the necessity of discussing the goalsof the single books of the Metaphysics in part [3]. This necessity, al-Frb says,is due to the fact that no commentary on these books is available in Arabic, withthe only exception of book L and the commentaries on it by Alexander of Aphro-disias and Themistius. In part [3], therefore, al-Frb will provide the Arabicreader with a first acquaintance with the contents and goals of the books of theMetaphysics other than L.

Part [2] constitutes the doctrinal core of the treatise. In it al-Frb deals withthe science contained in Aristotles Metaphysics more than with the Metaphysicsas such. The leit-motiv of this part is the status of metaphysics as universal sci-

3 HEIN, Definition und Enteilung der Philosophie cit., 310-312, remarks the Neoplatonic overtones ofal-Frbs account, even though she overemphasizes the point, regarding not only the mention of the Cre-ator, the Intellect and the Soul as a reference to the Theologia Aristotelis, but also the mention of the ilmal-tawd as a reference to the Liber de Causis. GUTAS, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition cit., 240, n.4, clarifies that the expression ilm al-tawd refers properly to Islamic theology. The Creator is mentionedtogether with the Intellect and the Soul in Theologia Aristotelis, cap. 1 (PLOTINO, La discesa dellanima neicorpi (Enn. IV 8 [6]). Plotiniana Arabica [Pseudo-Teologia di Aristotele, Capitoli 1 e 7; Detti del sapientegreco], a cura di C. DAncona, Il Poligrafo, Padova 2003, 237,4-8) and cap. 7 (249,3-10). The triad Cre-ator-Intellect-Soul apperas, in the reverse order, in Avicennas refutation of Platonic philosophy inIlhiyyt, VII, 3 (IBN SN, Al-if, al-Ilhiyyt [2], ed. M.Y. Msa / S. Dunya / S. Zayed, al-Haya al-m-ma li-un al-mabi al-amriyya, Cairo 1960, 318,15; AVICENNA LATINUS, Liber de Philosophia prima siveScientia divina, V-X. dition critique par S. Van Riet. Introduction par G. Verbeke, Peeters, Louvain /Brill, Leiden 1980, 369, 18; henceforth the pages and lines of the Latin translation of the Ilhiyyt are re-ported within square brackets).



ence, something that distinguishes it from particular sciences like natural phi-losophy, geometry, arithmetic and medicine ([2.1]-[2.2]; see the translation inTable 2, below). The universality of metaphysics entails that it is one ([2.3]), thatit encompasses philosophical theology as one of its parts ([2.4]; see the transla-tion in Table 2, below), and that it is more general than natural philosophy, i.e.higher than and posterior to it, accordingly being named metaphysics ([2.5]).Part [2] ends with an ordered list of the topics dealt with by metaphysics, whichamounts to a description of its ideal structure ([2.6]). In this list al-Frb firstmentions the primary concern of metaphysics, i.e. the investigation of existent,one, non-existence and multiplicity; then he assigns to metaphysics the studyof their species, properties, and principles; finally he maintains that metaphysicsclarifies the principles and definitions of the other disciplines (see [2.6e] inTable 2, below).

To sum up: part [2] establishes that metaphysics is the only universal scienceand the only science worthy to be called metaphysics; that it has some sub-ject-matters, primary among which are existent and one, and deals withtheir species, properties and principles; that philosophical theology, meant asthe investigation of the principle of existent in so far as it is existent, is only apart of metaphysics.

Part [3], finally, provides the description of twelve of the fourteen books ofthe Metaphysics. The missing books are A and in all likelihood N. The de-scription of some books is rather vague. This happens in the case of the tenth([3.10]) and twelfth book ([3.12]), even though there is no reason to assume thatthese descriptions do not refer to books K and M respectively.

The F Ar is neither a commentary on the Metaphysics, nor a reworking ofit, but rather an introduction. Thus, al-Frb deals with certain issues like thegoal (ara) of the Metaphysics (see below, Text 1), the name (ism) of the sci-ence contained in it (see [2.5]), and the divisions (aqsm) of this work (see [1.1]and [4]) that correspond to some of the preliminary questions discussed in theNeoplatonic commentaries on Aristotles works, namely the question of thegoal (skopov"), title (ejpigrafhv) and division into chapters (eij" ta; ke-favlaia diaivresi") of the work commented upon4.

Among these issues, the goal (ara) is no doubt the most important, as thetitle of al-Frbs essay makes clear. Since al-Frb speaks of the goal of theMetaphysics in different ways and contexts, it is convenient to examine prelimi-narily all his relevant statements in this regard.

4 See A. BERTOLACCI, The Structure of Metaphysical Science in the Ilhiyyt (Divine Science) of Avi-cennas Kitb al-if (Book of the Cure), Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale, 13(2002), 22-23.


292 Amos Bertolacci

Text 1[Title] Treatise ... on the goals (ar) of the Sage [i.e. Aristotle] in each treatise ofthe book named by means of letters [i.e. the Metaphysics], namely (wa-huwa) the de-termination of Aristotles goal (ara) in the book Metaphysics.[1.1] He [i.e. al-Frb] says: Our aim in this treatise is to indicate the goal (ara) thatAristotles book known as Metaphysics contains, and the primary divisions (aqsm) ofit.[1.2] [...] since we find most of the discussion in it [i.e. in the Metaphysics] devoid ofthis goal (h l-ara) [i.e. the treatment of theological matters], or, rather, we do notfind in it any specific discussion of this goal (h l-ara), except [the discussion] thattakes place in the eleventh treatise, the one designated as L [i.e. L]. [1.4] We want to indicate the goal (ara) that is present in it [i.e. in the entire Meta-physics] and that which each of its treatises contains.[Conclusion] This is the clarification of the goal (ara) of this book and [the clarifi-cation] of its divisions (aqsm).

In Text 1, al-Frb mentions both the specific goals of the single books (di-visions, aqsm) of the Metaphysics (in [Title] and [1.4])5, and the overall goal ofthe entire Metaphysics. In [Title], the goals of the books are treated as equivalentto the goal of the whole work; in [1.4], on the other hand, the two are distin-guished. In part [3] of the F Ar, devoted to discussing the goals of the singlebooks, al-Frb provides an account of their content, focusing either on one orseveral of their themes. Thus, it appears that the goal of the books of the Meta-physics is constituted by their prime topic or topics. As to the overall goal of theMetaphysics, it is always referred to in the singular. Furthermore, the goal of theMetaphysics mentioned in [1.1] is identified in [1.2] with the theological inve-stigation performed by Aristotle in book L. Thus, according to al-Frb the sin-gle goal of the entire Metaphysics is the theological investigation. In other words:according to al-Frb, the Metaphysics has both a primary goal, i.e. the theolog-ical investigation, and several secondary goals, corresponding to the main top-ics of its single books.

This explains why, in the part of the F Ar devoted to discussing the ge-neral goal of the Metaphysics (part [2]), al-Frb, as we have seen, deals pri-marily with the theological investigation, but takes into account also several oth-er themes, roughly corresponding to the topics of the single books, without as-signing specifically to any of them the role of goal of the Metaphysics or regard-

5 In [Title], he refers to these goals collectively in the plural; in [1.4], on the other hand, he refers toeach of them distributively in the singular. Whereas in [Title] the goals of the single books appear to co-incide with the goal of the entire Metaphysics, in [1.4] the former are distinct from the latter. Due to thedistinction that al-Frb draws, in [1.1] and [Conclusion], between the Metaphysics in its entirety and itssingle books, it is safe to assume that he has in mind two distinct types of goals.



ing any of them as more important than the others. Significantaly, in light of whatwe are going to see, among these themes (i.e. secondary goals) there are the in-vestigation of being qua being (see especially [2.2] and the beginning of [2.6])and the metaphysical proof of the principles of the other sciences ([2.6e]).

2. The Sources of the F Ar

A work like the F Ar is unprecedented in Arabic philosophy: it is reaso-nable to look for its source in Greek metaphysics. In fact, it is related to the com-mentatorial tradition of Late Antiquity, in general, and to Ammonius school inVI c. Alexandria, in particular. The dependence of the F Ar on Ammoniusmetaphysics is shown by the similarities with Ammonius commentary on theMetaphysics preserved in Greek in the reportatio by the disciple Asclepius6 even though this commentary, as we are going to see, is not the direct source ofthe F Ar. The relevant indications are the following.

First, as I have already remarked, the F Ar inherits from the commenta-torial tradition of Late Antiquity the character of prolegomenon. Now, Ammo-nius/Asclepius commentary on the Metaphysics is the only Greek commentaryon this work which includes the discussion of prolegomena. Thus, even thoughthe propedeutic issues discussed by Ammonius/Asclepius in the commentary onthe Metaphysics are more numerous than, and partially different from, those dealtwith in the F Ar7, and even though al-Frb is not the first Arab philosopher

6 ASCLEPII In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libros A-Z Commentaria, ed. M. Hayduck, Berolini 1888(CAG VI.2). On Ammonius/Asclepius commentary, see C. LUNA, Les commentaires grecs la Mta-physique, in R. GOULET (d.), Dictionnaire des Philosophes antiques, Supplement, CNRS Editions, Paris2003, 249-258.

7 In Ammonius/Asclepius commentary there are two distinct Prolegomena, both belonging to the the-ory of the first praxis (ASCLEPIUS, In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libros A-Z Commentaria, ed. Hayduck,1,4-5,32): the former occurs in the commentary on the first lemma of the theory (1,4-2,3), the latter in thecommentary on the second lemma of the theory (2,4-5,32). In the first Prolegomenon, three topics are firstmentioned (1,6-7) and then discussed (1,7-22): (i) the goal of the Metaphysics (skopov", 1,7-8); (ii) its po-sition within Aristotles corpus of works (tavxi", 1,8-19); (iii) the reason of its title (hJ aijtiva th~" ejpigrafh~",1,19-22). In the remainder of the commentary on the first lemma (1,22-2,3), it is shown that Aristotle the-ologizes, i.e. speaks about God, not only in the Metaphysics, but also in his works of natu-ral philosophy(De Generatione et Corruptione, Physics and De Anima are mentioned). In the second Prolegomenon, fourgeneral topics are mentioned (2,5-7) and discussed (2,9-4,3): (i) the goal of the Metaphysics (skopov", 2,9-20); (ii) its utility (to; crhvsimon, 2,20-3,20); (iii) its position within Aristotles corpus of works (tavxi",3,21-27); (iv) the reason of its title (hJ aijtiva th~" ejpigrafh~", 3,27-4,3). A fifth topic follows: (v) the wayaccording to which the Metaphysics is organized (oJ trovpo" th~" suntavxew", 4,4-16). Two more specifictopics (mentioned at 2,7-9) are added, as a way of introducing the exegesis of book A: the relationship be-tween books A and a (4,17-35); Aristotles starting-point in conveying the knowledge of first philosophy(4,36-5,32). Only topics (i) and (iii) in the first Prolegomenon and topics (i) and (iv) in the second have a


294 Amos Bertolacci

to discuss these issues with regard to the Metaphysics8, the common applicationto the Metaphysics of the explicative tool of the prolegomena represents a firstsignificant similarity between Ammonius and al-Frb.

Second, the specific description of the goal of the Metaphysics is remarkablysimilar in the F Ar and in Ammonius/Asclepius commentary on the Meta-physics. As already pointed out (see above, Text 1), the goal of the Metaphysicsin the F Ar is identified primarily with the investigation of theological mat-ters, but also, in a secondary way, with the group of topics mentioned in the out-line of metaphysics in part [2]. A similar approach can be found in the prole-gomena of Ammonius/Asclepius commentary on the Metaphysics.

Text 2[a] (1, 7-8) Goal (skopov") of the present investigation [i.e. of the Metaphysics] is totheologize. For in it Aristotle theologizes.[b1] (2,9-15) The goal (oJ skopov") of the present book is to speak about beings and[to speak about them] qua beings, and to discuss about all beings in absolute terms, inso far as they are beings. Hence we have proposed the following definition of philoso-phy: Knowledge of beings qua beings. For here the discussion regards neither par-ticulars, like comets, as in the Meteorologica, nor universals, as in the De Caelo.Rather, it regards all beings universally.[b2] (2,15-16) For theologizing is incumbent upon him [i.e. Aristotle] in the presentbook.[b3] (2,16-20) By all means, [it is incumbent upon him] also to discuss about ele-ments and principles, for only first philosophy is charged with proving the principlesof all the sciences. For the other sciences do not prove the[ir] proper principles, butonly first philosophy proves the principles of all the sciences. This [has to be said] about the goal (tou~ skopou~).

The idea that the theological discussion is the goal of the Metaphysics occursin two places of Ammonius/Asclepius prolegomena ([a] and [b2]). Even thoughthis idea is present in nuce in Alexander of Aphrodisias commentary on Meta-physics L, as reported by Averroes9, it is strongly emphasized in Ammonius/As-

parallel in the F Ar. Nowhere in Ammonius/Asclepius commentary we find a division of the Meta-physics similar to the one that al-Frb provides in part [3].

8 The issues of the title and of the intention (qad) of the Metaphysics are briefly discussed in bitIbn Qurrs Tal of this work (see the forthcoming critical edition, with English translation and com-mentary, by D.C. Reisman and A. Bertolacci).

9 AVERROS, Tafsir ma bad at-Tabiat, ed. M. Bouyges, Imprimerie Catholique, Beirut 1938-1948,1394,12: The clarification of this [i.e. of the first] substance is the aim sought for (al-ya al-maqda)in this discipline. In bit Ibn Qurrs Tal of the Metaphysics (see above, n. 8), the intention (qad)of the Metaphysics is portrayed as the investigation of the unmoved substance. The author of the Theolo-gia Aristotelis mentions the goals (ar) of the previous subjects dealt with (A. BADAW, Afln indal-arab, Maktaba al-naha al-miriyya, Cairo 1955, 6,1-2), including the Metaphysics (5, 1-2, 12), but hedoes not specify the identity of the goal of these subjects.



clepius commentary: besides being repeated twice in Text 2, it also recurs else-where in the commentary10. This corresponds to the primacy that al-Frb as-signs to the theological investigation among the goals of the Metaphysics, as wehave seen. In sections [b1] and [b3] of Ammonius/Asclepius prolegomena, thegoal of the Metaphysics is portrayed differently. In [b1], it is the universal inve-stigation of being qua being11. This is the same as one of the secondary goals ofthe Metaphysics according to part [2] of the F Ar. In section [b3] of Ammo-nius/Asclepius prolegomena, finally, the goal of the Metaphysics coincides witha further notion, i.e. the proof provided by metaphysics (called first philoso-phy) of the principles of the other sciences12. This corresponds to another of thesecondary goals of the Metaphysics in the F Ar, as we have seen. To explainhow these different characterizations of the goal of the Metaphysics in Ammo-nius/Asclepius commentary relate to each other is not our task here. What isimportant to notice is the striking similarity between the account of the goal ofthe Metaphysics in the prolegomena of Ammonius/Asclepius commentary andits treatment in the F Ar.

Third, Ammonius/Asclepius commentary on the Metaphysics takes into ac-count not only the general goal of the Metaphysics, but also the goals of some ofthe single books of this work. This happens in the case of books B, G and E,namely three of the seven books that the commentary, in the form in which it isextant, embraces. The goal of these books is the first thing mentioned in the in-troduction to them.

Text 3[a] (137,13-14) Then [i.e. after books A and a] the goal (skopov") of the present book,namely of B, is to raise difficulties with regard to first philosophy.[b] (222,6-7) The goal (skopov") of the present book [i.e. G] is to solve many of the dif-ficulties mentioned in the second [book], namely in B.[c] (358,4-5) The goal (skopov") of Aristoteles in [book] E is to speak about being peraccidens.

Even though the description of the goal of books B, G and E is only partiallysimilar in Ammonius/Asclepius commentary and in the F Ar, the fact thatboth works devote considerable attention to this issue represents another signi-ficant similarity between them.

Fourth, section [1.3] of the F Ar contains an undetermined reference toprevious philosophers that can be regarded as an allusion to Ammonius.

10 ASCLEPIUS, In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libros A-Z Commentaria, ed. Hayduck, 395,1-2; 397,5-6.11 The goal of the Metaphysics is portrayed in this way also at 143,15-16.12 The same idea occurs at 5,29-32.


296 Amos Bertolacci

Text 4[a] Furthermore, the Ancients do not have (l yad li-l-qudam) any discussionaimed at explaining (kalm f ar) this book [i.e. the Metaphysics] as it is, contrarily towhat happens with the other books [by Aristotle]. [b] If such a discussion can be found, it is the incomplete one concerning treatise Lby Alexander [of Aphrodisias], and the complete one [concerning the same treatise] byThemistius. [c] As to the other treatises, either they have not been explained, or [their explanation]has not been preserved, [d] as one might think by seeing in the books (kutub) of the Posterior Peripatetics (al-mutaairna min al-maiyyna) that Alexander had commented upon the book [i.e.the Metaphysics] in its entirety.

In [a], al-Frb states that no complete commentary on the Metaphysics bythe Ancients (al-qudam) is available in Arabic. The expression the An-cients refers to the Ancient Greek commentators, as it becomes clear in [b], inwhich the commentaries by Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius on Meta-physics L are mentioned as extant in Arabic. In [c], al-Frb maintains that ei-ther these Ancient Greek commentators have not commented on the Metaphysicsin its entirety, or that their commentaries have not been preserved. The latter al-ternative is corroborated by [d], which is the relevant part of Text 7 for our pur-poses.

In [d], al-Frb states that the inspection of certain books (kutub) of thePosterior Peripatetics (al-mutaairna min al-maiyyna) attests thatAlexander of Aphrodisias had, in fact, commented upon the whole Metaphysics.Four remarks are in order. First, al-Frb had direct access to the books in que-stion, since he maintains to have read them (as one might think by seeing ...).Second, these books are independent treatises on metaphysics rather than com-mentaries on the Metaphysics, since they are named books (kutub), not di-scussion aimed at explaining (kalm f ar), i.e. commentaries, as in [a]. Third,the authors of these books, namely the Posterior Peripatetics, are later than theAncients, i.e. Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius, and are Greekphilosophers, since they are witnesses of a part of Alexanders commentary nottranslated or not extant in Arabic. Fourth, these independent treatises on meta-physics of the Posterior Peripatetics must have contained many references toAlexanders commentary on the Metaphysics such as: In his commentary onMetaphysics A, Alexander says that ..., or: In his commentary on Metaphysicsa, Alexander says that ... etc., from which it could be inferred that the scope ofAlexanders commentary was broader than book L.

All these indications converge on Ammonius. For some of his works on meta-physics were known to al-Frb, like the treatise on Aristotles doctrine of Godas artificer (i.e. efficient cause) of the world, quoted and portrayed as well-known



in the Kitb al-am13; he was posterior to Alexander and Themistius; and hemade extensive use of Alexander of Aphrodisias commentary on the Meta-physics, as his own commentary on the Metaphysics witnesses14. On account ofthis evidence, it can be inferred that Ammonius is one of the Posterior Peri-patetics envisaged by al-Frb in [d].

Once Ammonius is placed in the background of al-Frbs F Ar, it is al-so possible to ascertain more precisely the work by Ammonius on which al-Frbs essay directly depends. This work is not Ammonius commentary on theMetaphysics, since this commentary was not translated into Arabic, and it is notmentioned by al-Frb in [1.3] (= Text 4) among the commentaries on the Meta-physics he had access to. Probably it is not Ammonius treatise on Aristotles doc-trine of God as artificer of the world either, since this treatise, extant neither inGreek nor in Arabic, appears to be an essay on a specific metaphysical doctrine,rather than a general introduction to Aristotles Metaphysics like the F Ar.

13 AB NAR AL-FRB, Lharmonie entre les opinions de Platon et dAristote. Texte arabe et traduction,ed. F.M. Naar / D. Mallet, Institut Franais de Damas, Damascus 1999, 135,1-2: Ammonius is the au-thor of a treatise specifically devoted to recording the statements of these two sages [i.e. Aristotle and Pla-to] on establishing [the existence of] the Artificer; on account of its celebrity we are dispensed from men-tioning it (wa-li-Amniysa rislatun mufradatun f ikri aqwili hayni l-akmayni f ibti l-niiistanayn li-uhratih an irih iyyh). Al-Frbs mention of the well-known nature of Ammoniustreatise might suggest that he is referring to the doxography widely circulating in the Arab world underthe name of Ammonius (see RUDOLPH, Die Doxographie des Pseudo-Ammonios cit.; I wish to thank Cristi-na DAncona for having brought this possibility to my attention). However, the treatise by Ammonius quot-ed by al-Frb appears to be a different one, namely the one mentioned by Simplicius in his commen-taries on the Physics and the De Caelo (ed. H. Diels [CAG X], 1363,8-12 [ad Phys. 321 b]: [...] My teacherAmmonius wrote a whole book offering many proofs that Aristotle thought God was also an efficient causeof the whole cosmos [...], engl. transl. in R. SORABJI, Infinite Power Impressed: The Transformation of Aris-totles Physics and Theology, in R. SORABJI [ed.], Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators andTheir Influence, Duckworth, London 1990, 184-185; ed. J.L. Heiberg, CAG VII, 271,18-21 [ad De Cael.486 a 32]), and by the Fihrist (Al-Nadm, Kitb al-Fihrist, ed. G. Flgel / J. Rodiger /A. Mller, 2 vols.,Leipzig 1871-1872, 253,21-22: Book of the commentary on Aristotles doctrines on the Artificer [Kitbar mahib Arisls f l-ni]). For the pseudo-Ammonian doxography deals with many more authorsthan Plato and Aristotle, conveys a disparaging view of Aristotle, and does not contain the doctrine as-cribed by al-Frb to Ammonius. On the other hand, immediately before the aforementioned quotation ofAmmonius, al-Frb attributes to Aristotle the doctrine that God is the efficient cause (illa fila) of theuniverse, the main tenet of Ammonius treatise, according to Simplicius. Ammonius is quoted even earli-er in the am, in a logical context (87,3-4). In this quotation, Ammonius is portrayed as preceding, ratherthan following, Themistius. But this lack of chronological exactness does not necessarily imply that al-Frb is not referring to Ammonius Son of Hermeias, as Nar and Mallet propose (they think that hemight be referring to Ammonius Saccas, teacher of Plotinus).

14 Alexanders commentary is quoted in the exegesis of all the books commented upon by Ammo-nius/Asclepius, except E. On the influence of Alexanders commentary on the Metaphysics on Ammo-nius/Asclepius, see C. LUNA, Alexandre dAphrodise et Syrianus comme sources du commentaire dAs-clpius, in EAD., Trois tudes sur la tradition des commentaires anciens la Mtaphysique dAristote, Brill,Leiden 2001, 99-186. WISNOVSKY, Avicennas Metaphysics in Context cit., 108, regards al-Frbs attemptat reconciling the Aristotelian notion of potency (quwwa) and the Neoplatonic notion of perfect (tmm)in [2.2] and [2.6] as a sign of dependence upon Ammonius.


298 Amos Bertolacci

The work by Ammonius which lies behind al-Frbs treatise is probably the partconcerning the Metaphysics of a general introduction to Aristotles corpus, which,albeit not extant in Greek or Arabic, is mentioned in the Arabic bibliographicalliterature.

Significantly, among the works by Ammonius the Arabic historical sourcesreport a book whose title is strikingly similar to that of al-Frbs F Ar. Thisrepresents a fifth piece of evidence to prove that Ammonius is the source of theF Ar. In the entry devoted to Ammonius, the Fihrist mentions after Am-monius Aristotelian commentaries and his essay on Aristotles doctrine of Godas artificer the following book:

Text 5Book on the goals (f ar) of Aristotle in his books (f kutubih)15.

Unfortunately, this work by Ammonius is not extant either in Greek or Ara-bic. From its title we can surmise that it was a general introduction to the Aris-totelian corpus, elucidating the goals (and possibly also the other preliminary is-sues) of each of Aristotles works.

Now, the title of this essay is remarkably similar, both in the sequence of itselements and in its terminology, to the title of al-Frbs F Ar (see Text 1).The only difference between the two titles concerns their last element and pointsto a different scope of investigation of the two works: whereas Ammonius essayranges over all the Aristotelian corpus (in his [i.e. Aristotles] books), al-Frbs F Ar focuses on a specific work by Aristotle, i.e. the Metaphysics.On account of this evidence, it would not be far-fetched to assume that al-FrbsF Ar reproduces, or is inspired by, the part of this essay by Ammonius dea-ling with Aristotles Metaphysics. Should this be the case, then Ammonius essaywould be not only the source of the F Ar, but also together with Ammoniustreatise on Aristotles doctrine on God as artificer one of the books (signifi-cantly in the plural) of the Posterior Peripatetics mentioned by al-Frb in Text4 [d].

In front of these five pieces of evidence attesting the dependence of al-Frbs F Ar on Ammonius metaphysics, there is one main reason that canbe advanced in order to prove the contrary. This is the fact that Ammonius knewthe Metaphysics in its entirety, whereas al-Frb was unaware of some of itsbooks, like A and N. It could be argued, therefore, that a work by Ammonius can-not be the source of F Ar, since in this case al-Frb would have known and

15 AL-NADM, Kitb al-Fihrist, ed. G. Flgel / Rodiger / Mller, 253, 22: kitb f ari Arislsa f ku-tubih.



presumably mentioned the books of the Metaphysics that, on the contrary, he ignores. This line of reasoning, however, is not conclusive. First, even thoughAmmonius comments upon book A in his commentary on the Metaphysics, andin the prolegomena of this same commentary maintains that the Metaphysics con-sists of fourteen books (from A until N), rejecting the view of those who ascribeA not to Aristotle, but to Pasicles of Rhodes16, he also adopts a less inclusivenumbering of the books of the Metaphysics, by calling B second book, insteadof third, and G third, instead of fourth17. Second, even assuming that the workby Ammonius representing the source of the F Ar encompassed all the booksof the Metaphysics, al-Frb might have reworked the indications that he foundin Ammonius work adapting them to the extent that the Metaphysics had in theArabic translation accessible to him, i.e. the translation by Us missing booksA and N. In other words, the different scope of the Metaphysics in Ammonius es-say and the F Ar does not necessarily exclude the dependence of the latterupon the former; it could rather show that al-Frb was original in using Am-monius metaphysics as his source.

To summarize: In the light of its literary genre (an introduction to the Meta-physics modeled on the prolegomena literature of Late Antiquity), some of itsdoctrines (the investigation of God as the main goal of metaphysics, metaphyiscsas the universal science of existent qua existent, the fact that the principles ofthe particular sciences are proved by metaphysics), its theme (an investigationof the goal of the Metaphysics and of the goals of its single books), some of theauthors referred to in it (the Posterior Peripatetics) and the range of its possiblesources (Ammonius treatise on the goals of Aristotles works, mentioned in theFihrist), al-Frbs F Ar can be envisaged as dependent on Ammoniusmetaphysics.

The reliance of al-Frbs F Ar on Ammonius metaphysics needs furthercorroboration. The first question to be answered is how wide was the diffusion ofAmmonius treatise in the Arabic tradition18, and, more specifically, its relationwith the last part of al-Kinds Risla f Kammiyyat kutub Arisls (Treatise on

16 ASCLEPIUS, In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libros A-Z Commentaria, ed. Hayduck, 4,18-22.17 222,7; 223,11.18 The Fihrist does not say that this treatise was translated into Arabic. Al-Frb acquaintance with

it would imply the existence either of an Arabic translation unknown to Ibn al-Nadm or of some kind ofintermediate source. On al-Frbs dependence on Alexandrian philosophy, see D. GUTAS, Paul the Per-sian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotles Philosophy: A Milestone Between Alexandria and Bagh-dad, Der Islam, 60 (1983), 231-267, D. GUTAS, Al-Frb and Greek Philosophy, in E. YARSHATER (ed.),Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. IX, 1999, 219-223, D. GUTAS, The Alexandria to Baghdad Complex of Nar-ratives. A Contribution to the Study of Philosophical and Medical Historiography among the Arabs, Doc-umenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale, 10 (1999), 155-193 and P. VALLAT, Frb et l-cole dAlexandrie. Des prmisses de la connaissance la philosophie politique, Vrin, Paris 2004.


300 Amos Bertolacci

the Number of Aristotles Books), in which the goals (ar) of Aristotles booksare expounded19, with only a few lines though devoted to the Metaphysics20.Should the pieces of evidence presented here be confirmed by future research,we would be in presence of one important, and unknown so far, trait-dunion be-tween the Greek and the Arabic tradition of Aristotles Metaphysics. The histor-ical significance of this connection cannot be overemphasized.

The F Ar, and its presumed source in Ammonius, is built upon the doc-trines of some books of the Metaphysics, primarily G. The entire part [2] of the FAr depends on G, as al-Frb himself acknowledges in the description of Gin [3.3]. More in general, al-Frbs conception of the content and structure ofmetaphysics, and his explanation of how philosophical theology belongs to meta-physics, come from G, 1-221.

3. F Ar: Influence on Avicenna

The F Ar had a strong impact on the subsequent reception of the Metaphysicsin Arabic. Averroes Prologue to Metaphysics L, for example, appears to dependon this treatise22. As to Avicenna, in a famous passage of the Autobiography heacknowledges his debt towards this treatise for his understanding of the Meta-physics23. The F Ar influenced Avicennas conception of the epistemological

19 M. GUIDI / R.WALZER, Studi su al-Kind I: Uno scritto introduttivo allo studio di Aristotele, Bardi, Ro-ma 1940 (Memorie della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filoso-fiche, ser. VI, vol. VI, fasc. V), 399-403, 414-419 (chapters VIII-XII), 418. In the introduction, Guidi-Walzer [1940] do not deal with the sources of this part of al-Kinds treatise. With regard to Ab l-Faribn al-ayyib, who mentions the goals of Aristotles books on natural philosophy, HEIN, Definition undEnteilung der Philosophie cit., 276, states that es bleibt zu untersuchen, welchen Vorbildern er hierbeimglicherweise folgt.

20 GUIDI / WALZER, Studi su al-Kind I: Uno scritto introduttivo allo studio di Aristotele cit., 403,8-11,418; English translation in GUTAS, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition cit., 244.

21 See A. BERTOLACCI, La ricezione del libro G della Metafisica nellIlhiyyt del Kitb al-if di Avi-cenna, in V. CELLUPRICA / C. DANCONA / R. CHIARADONNA (a cura di), Aristotele e i suoi esegeti neoplatoni-ci. Logica e ontologia nelle interpretazioni greche e arabe (Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma, 19-20ottobre 2001), Bibliopolis, Napoli 2004, 180-181, 200-202.

22 In AVERROS, Tafsir ma bad at-Tabiat, ed. Bouyges, 1395,11-1405,15, Averroes shapes his ex-planation of Alexanders introduction to L along the lines of the F Ar: he provides a general outlineof the contents of metaphysics (1395,11-1397,4), followed by a description of the single books (1397,5-1405,3). Furthermore, while describing the single books, he sometimes mentions their specific goal(ara), as in the case of book D (1401,2). For the theological discussion in L as Aristotles primary in-tent (qaduh al-awwal) or aim sought for (ya maqda) or primary goal (arauh al-awwal) in theMetaphysics, see 1404,4-5; 1404,12.

23 See A. BERTOLACCI, From al-Kind to al-Frb: Avicennas Progressive Knowledge of Aristotles Meta-physics according to his Autobiography, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 11 (2001), 257-295.



profile of the Metaphysics, with particular regard to its subject-matter and goal,structure and relationship with the other sciences24. In the present section, Iwish to point to some passages of the Ilhiyyt which are quotations/paraphra-ses of texts of the F Ar. These passages occur in the second and third chap-ter of the Ilhiyyt (I, 2-3), a part of this work in which also Avicenna, like al-Frb, faces some of the prolegomena issues. They concern fundamental topicssuch as the role of existent qua existent as the subject-matter of metaphysics,the function of metaphysics as the discipline that certifies the principles of theother sciences, the classification of the things taken into account by metaphysicsaccording to their different relation with matter, and the name of metaphysics.In the following table, I focus on the last of these quotations/paraphrases.

Table 1

24 See BERTOLACCI, The Structure of Metaphysical Science cit., and ID., La ricezione del libro G cit.25 Reading fm instead of m.

Ilhiyyt, I, 3, 21,12-22,10; 24,1-2 [24,45-25,65; 27,2-4]

F Ar 35,19-36,2 [2.5]

[a] As to the name of this science, it is [sci-ence] of metaphysics (fm bada l-aba)25.

Therefore it [i.e. the present science]should be called metaphysics (ilm mbada l-aba).

[b] [Avicenna elucidates the meaning ofaba and bada in the aforementionedname].

[c] As to the name that this science de-serves when it is considered in itself, it isscience of what is before nature (ilm mqabla l-aba),

... then this science is loftier than the sci-ence of nature and [comes] after the scienceof nature.

[d] since the things investigated in this sci-ence are, in themselves and on account of[their] universality (bi-l-umm), before na-ture.

Since these things are not proper to naturalobjects but are loftier than them in univer-sality (umman) ...

[e] However, someone could say that thepure mathematical things investigated inarithmetic and geometry are also before na-ture (especially number, for it does not de-pend at all on nature for its existence, sinceit may exist not in nature), and [that], there-fore, arithmetic and geometry are necessar-ily science of what is before nature.

Although mathematics is loftier than thescience of nature since its subject-mat-ters are abstracted from matter


302 Amos Bertolacci

In this passage of Ilhiyyt I, 3, Avicenna reproduces some of al-Frbsconsiderations about the name of metaphysics. In [a] and [b], Avicenna indi-cates the same name that also al-Frb proposes, i.e. metaphysics, literal-ly: what is after nature. Then, in [c] he adds a second name, i.e. scienceof what is before nature, which is absent in al-Frb, but which correspondsto what al-Frb states about the superiority of metaphysics over natural phi-losophy. Moreover, in [d] Avicenna justifies this second name by means of con-siderations that are similar to those that al-Frb uses to explain the namemetaphysics, i. e. the universality of the things that metaphysics takes intoaccount. Finally, in [e]-[g] Avicenna dismisses the claim of the two branchesof mathematics (i.e. arithmetic and geometry) to be metaphysics, along thelines indicated by al-Frb, even though al-Frb refers to mathematics in itsentirety, whereas Avicenna distinguishes the case of geometry ([f]) from thatof arithmetic ([g]).

Avicennas reception of the F Ar is not limited to the Ilhiyyt. The in-fluence of this treatise by al-Frb is clearly visible, for example, in the meta-physical part of the Nat26. Also in this case, the dependence regards the verybeginning of Avicennas work, i.e. its Introduction.

26 IBN SN, Al-Nat min al-arq f bar al-allt, ed. M.T. Dnipazh, Dnigah Tehran, Tehran1985.

[f] What ought to be said against this ob-jection is that, as far as geometry is con-cerned, [...] it is known that its subject-mat-ter is not separate from nature in subsis-tence. [...][g] Hence arithmetic takes number into ac-count only in so far as number possessesthe consideration that it has when it is innature.

it ought not to be called metaphysics. Forits subject-matters are abstracted frommatter in imagination [only], not in exis-tence. As to existence, they do not exist ex-cept in natural things.


[b] It is evident, therefore, that there is ascience which examines the condition ofthe absolute existent, its attributes whichpertain to it by itself, and its principles.

[a] We say that each of the natural sciencesand the mathematical sciences examinesthe state of some existents only. The otherparticular sciences do the same. None ofthem investigates the states of the absoluteexistent, its attributes and its principles.

[2.1] Particular sciences are those whosesubject-matters are some existents or someimaginary objects, and whose investigationregards specifically the accidents that areproper to them. [Examples of natural sci-ence, geometry, arithmetic and medicinefollow]. None of them investigates what iscommon to all existents.


Table 2

Nat, Metaphysics, Introduction, 493, 2-13

F Ar

[2.2] Universal science, on the other hand,investigates the thing that is common to allexistents (like existence and oneness), itsspecies and attributes, the things which arenot proper accidents of any of the subject-matters of the particular science (like pri-ority and posteriority, potency and act, per-fect and deficient, and similar things) andthe common principle of all existents,namely the thing that ought to be called bythe name of God may His glory be exalt-ed.

[c] Since God the Most High, by unanimousconsensus, is not principle of a caused ex-istent to the exclusion of another, but He isprinciple of caused existence [li-l-wudi l-malli; of the caused existent, li-l-mawdi l-malli ?] in an absolute way,there is no doubt that the divine science isthis science.

[2.4] The divine science ought to belong tothis [universal] science, because God is aprinciple of the absolute existent, not of oneexistent to the exclusion of another. Thatpart [of the universal science], then, whichcontains providing the principle of the ex-istent ought to be the divine science.

[d] This science, therefore, examines theabsolute existent, and ceases from articu-lating [it] where the other sciences start. Inthis science, hence, is contained the clari-fication of the principles of the other sci-ences [which are] particular.

[2.6e] [Each one of these] is branched outand divided, until the subject-matters ofthe particular sciences are reached and[consequently] this science ends. In it theprinciples of all the particular sciences andthe definitions of their subject-matters areclarified.


304 Amos Bertolacci

The Introduction of the metaphysical part of the Nat is a kind of selectivesummary of part [2] of the F Ar. Avicenna reproduces sections [2.1], [2.2],[2.4] and [2.6e] of al-Frbs treatise, and in same cases, as in [c] and [d], his ac-count amounts to a paraphrase, similar to its source in terminology and syntax27.The only relevant doctrinal difference between the two texts regards section [c]:whereas in al-Frb the divine science, i.e. philosophical theology, is a part ofmetaphysics, in Avicenna it is presented as identical to metaphysics itself. Avi-cenna explains elsewhere (for instance in Ilhiyyt I, 2) that metaphysics is di-vine science because its subject-matter, i.e. the existent qua existent, is an im-material reality preceding both physical and mathematical existence. Thus, eventhough metaphysics has the existent qua existent as its subject-matter, it is di-vine science in so far as its subject-matter is something immovable and sepa-rate, as Aristotle establishes in Metaphysics E, 1. In this way, Avicenna harmo-nizes al-Frbs ontological perspective on metaphysics with al-Kinds the-ological one.

4. Conclusion

Al-Frbs F Ar is an articulated overview of the Metaphysics, which pro-vides both a description of the epistemological profile of the science of meta-physics and a comprehensive account of the specific contents of the Metaphysics(1). Related to the commentatorial tradition of Greek Antiquity (Alexander ofAphrodisias and Themistius, but also more importantly Ammonius Son ofHermeias, 2), it deeply influenced Avicennas conception of Aristotles Meta-physics, as Avicennas Ilhiyyt and other metaphysical works of his witness (3).

If the investigation of the sources of the F Ar accomplished in 2 is cor-rect, to the three channels of diffusion into Arabic of the Greek tradition of theMetaphysics already known a fourth one can be added: besides the Arabic trans-lations of the Metaphysics itself, of some of the Greek commentaries on this work,and of the descriptions of the Metaphysics in the Greek surveys of the Aris-totelian corpus or in the classifications the sciences, there is evidence for an Ara-bic version (i.e. al-Frbs F Ar) of a Greek introduction to the Metaphysics(the part dealing with the Metaphysics of Ammonius treatise On the Goals of Aris-totle in His Books). This fourth channel is different from, and more affluent than,the other three on account of its larger scope: whereas the other three either fo-

27 In section [b], Avicenna does not call metaphysics universal science, as al-Frb does in [2.2].This expression, however, occurs in other works by Avicenna and is somehow presupposed by the men-tion of the particular sciences, with regard to the disciplines other than metaphysics, in [a] and [d].



cus on book L (the Arabic translations of the Metaphysics), or are limited to thisbook (the Arabic translations of the commentaries on the Metaphysics), or con-vey an image of the Metaphysics that is reducible to it (the Arabic versions of thesurveys of the Aristotelian corpus and the classifications of the sciences), al-Frbs F Ar and Ammonius introduction to the Metaphysics which isprobably its source encompasses the Metaphysics in its entirety.

With some differences and adjustements, Avicennas conception of meta-physics depends primarily and immediataly on al-Frb, and indirectly on Am-monius.


bertolacci, ammonius and al-farabi, the sources of av's concept of met.pdf

Documents